Widescreen Gaming Forum

Wow check out this review and videos from pc perspective. ATI got raped. Think it is time to sell my 5870's.

Just a funny quote from the review.
"We ran Metro 2033 with Advance DOF disabled because it brought all of the cards but the GTX 480 to an unplayable state."

http://pcper.com/article.php?aid=946

Those numbers don't really make any sense. How is 5870 CF no faster than 5870 in L4D2? And only four games are tested. Not thorough enough to draw any hard and fast conclusions, though it is probable that Surround will be faster than Crossfire Eyefinity simply because SLI scales a little better than Crossfire, and also because Crossfire scaling in Eyefinity is not that good to begin with.

Yea it speaks for itself, and is obvious surround is the clear winner even if it is only 4 tests. I thought that was weird as well with the Left 4 Dead something not right there.

Tom's Hardware has compared the GTX 480 SLI vs the 5870 E6 2 GB and while the nVidia cards are faster they are not winning by a huge amount.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/3d-vision-surround-stereoscopic-gaming,2672-7.html

The 2 Gb of memory may have helped a lot.

Tom's Hardware has compared the GTX 480 SLI vs the 5870 E6 2 GB and while the nVidia cards are faster they are not winning by a huge amount.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/3d-vision-surround-stereoscopic-gaming,2672-7.html

The 2 Gb of memory may have helped a lot.

Interesting to see that the Eye 6 2gb in crossfire still gets beat by 480's, probably the first time I have seen price vs performance on Nvidia Side haha. Considering you can get 480's for cheaper then the Eyefinity 6 cards. Not sure how much the 2gb really helped, they should have tested regular 5870 as well.

So either way you look at it Nvidia is still on the top when it comes to surround... and I am sure it will only get better with newer drivers. This is still a beta driver.

Every one of those charts Nvidia was ahead actually by a lot.






Look at this massive lead haha.


I don't get what is different about this MW2 from the first one why are the numbers different?

You know what? I'm still happy with my purchase because i get up to 6 displays. nVidia gimps themselves with 3 in surround and 1 extended (that can only be used when a game is not using full screen).

You know what? I'm still happy with my purchase because i get up to 6 displays. nVidia gimps themselves with 3 in surround and 1 extended (that can only be used when a game is not using full screen).

Yea that is cool but I would never go over three screens anyway especially for gaming, I mean look at the bench's with 3 screens don't think 6 would do that great performance wise haha. Are you using 6 displays? If so, do you game on 6 displays? What kind of performance do you get? 6 displays would not be very practical for most games, I could not stand bezels in the middle of my viewing area. I play mostly FPS games and that would suck, I also play a lot of racing games and I think that would also be annoying.

Yea that is cool but I would never go over three screens anyway especially for gaming, I mean look at the bench's with 3 screens don't think 6 would do that great performance wise haha.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Are you using 6 displays?

No, I use 5 Screens like my signature states.

If so, do you game on 6 displays?

No I game on 3-5 Screens, ATM depends if I can get Windowed Mode or SoftTH to work.

What kind of performance do you get?

I get rather good performance on most games I play. Older games I get around 60 FPS. Newer game, I get most of the eyecandy and try to keep frames 24 FPS or Above. Most of the time I average 36 FPS. Now for me that's what I have been used to since I started gaming on the PC. I started using the TH2Go and a 4870 1GB, so I was used to trade offs. And I did my system on a budget, just like I do now. So I've just got a more crisper picture now, with better looking games. I'm really content. BTW I'm running only ONE 5870E6 Card.

NOTE: There are games where I have gotten 700 plus frames over 3 screens and in 3D with v-sync. Of course these are old except for one, Beat Hazard, but that only has 3D elements in the background, and those are just effects. But it just says some thing.

6 displays would not be very practical for most games, I could not stand bezels in the middle of my viewing area. I play mostly FPS games and that would suck, I also play a lot of racing games and I think that would also be annoying.

I play a ton of racing simulations, and shooters. So yes I realize that anyone using a single monitor and moving to a multiple monitor system would complay about the bezels. BUT you are not one of those. You have been multi-monitor gaming for a while, so even you should know that your brain fills in the gaps and you don't notice them (at least for vertical bezels). This is the same case here, except when you have to watch a FMV or use a menu do I realize that there are bezels in my face.

[quote]
Yea that is cool but I would never go over three screens anyway especially for gaming, I mean look at the bench's with 3 screens don't think 6 would do that great performance wise haha.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Are you using 6 displays?

No, I use 5 Screens like my signature states.

If so, do you game on 6 displays?

No I game on 3-5 Screens, ATM depends if I can get Windowed Mode or SoftTH to work.

What kind of performance do you get?

I get rather good performance on most games I play. Older games I get around 60 FPS. Newer game, I get most of the eyecandy and try to keep frames 24 FPS or Above. Most of the time I average 36 FPS. Now for me that's what I have been used to since I started gaming on the PC. I started using the TH2Go and a 4870 1GB, so I was used to trade offs. And I did my system on a budget, just like I do now. So I've just got a more crisper picture now, with better looking games. I'm really content. BTW I'm running only ONE 5870E6 Card.

NOTE: There are games where I have gotten 700 plus frames over 3 screens and in 3D with v-sync. Of course these are old except for one, Beat Hazard, but that only has 3D elements in the background, and those are just effects. But it just says some thing.

6 displays would not be very practical for most games, I could not stand bezels in the middle of my viewing area. I play mostly FPS games and that would suck, I also play a lot of racing games and I think that would also be annoying.

I play a ton of racing simulations, and shooters. So yes I realize that anyone using a single monitor and moving to a multiple monitor system would complay about the bezels. BUT you are not one of those. You have been multi-monitor gaming for a while, so even you should know that your brain fills in the gaps and you don't notice them (at least for vertical bezels). This is the same case here, except when you have to watch a FMV or use a menu do I realize that there are bezels in my face.

Sorry didn't read your sig before posting haha.

Why do you choose to use softh when you have an Eyefinity 6 card? I don't see the point in that when you have everything you need with the card.

How are you doing 3D?

And yea I see your point if you were using 5 screens hor that would be the same as using 3 as far as bezels, BUT if you used 2X3 you would have a huge bezel right in the middle of everything and that would be hard not to notice. My brain would not fill in those gaps haha. You mentioned 6 screens so again I thought you were talking about 6 screens. Another thing is even 5 screens would seem like a waste, it is hard enough for me to see the ends of my side monitors with three screens I doubt I would even see anything on 2 extra screens in hor, if I did see anything it would be very limited and I probably would not make it out. Portrait is not an option for me it just does not make sense and you see even more of the bezels.

You might want to hold off, maybe ask yourself questions like "why is Dirt 2 not recommended by nVidia" etc.

The list of 3d surround ready games seems a lot smaller than ATI's.

You might want to hold off, maybe ask yourself questions like "why is Dirt 2 not recommended by nVidia" etc.

The list of 3d surround ready games seems a lot smaller than ATI's.

but then if the system is as tweakable as the rest of nvidia stuff adapting profiles to 3D surround might just be doable by the end user
just like we can already tweak unsupported HDR+AA titles to support HDR+AA

Even though while saying that, I still realize myself that it's a bit too early to draw any conclusions, and we could end up with a quad or tri SLI kind of support which honestly sucks ...

Plus I will add that the GTX480 just plain sucks, too low perf/heat and perf/noise ratio ...
no matter in SLI ... :roll:

You might want to hold off, maybe ask yourself questions like "why is Dirt 2 not recommended by nVidia" etc.

The list of 3d surround ready games seems a lot smaller than ATI's.

Where is Dirt2 not recommended by Nvidia haha that is the funniest thing ever. Look at the charts it kills ATI.

Where is ATI's list of 3D games, and how do I get 3D with ATI.

[quote]
Plus I will add that the GTX480 just plain sucks, too low perf/heat and perf/noise ratio ...
no matter in SLI ... :roll:

REALLY? It is one thing to favor ATI or Nvidia but don't make lies. Do you own GTX480's probably not because you would not be making such statements. I mean come on it is the top card out, how can it suck. The heat really does not seem to be an issue and everyone I know that owns fermi cards says the whole heat debate is a joke. And they are also quieter then ATI cards. No idea where your getting your info from. Maybe you should RMA your cards if you have some bad fermis hehe.

And you do know that Nvidia scales way way way way better then ATI right. So how do they suck in SLI.

Sorry didn't read your sig before posting haha.

Why do you choose to use softh when you have an Eyefinity 6 card? I don't see the point in that when you have everything you need with the card.

Actually ATI has yet to release the Driver that allows for 5 screen combinations. I have eyefinity on the middle 3 and the 2 on the edges I try to use SoftTH to stitch them together. What makes me rage is that ATI demoed their 5 screen driver at computex and have yet to release the driver.

How are you doing 3D?

iZ3D lets you play any game that uses DX9 or OpenGL in 3D (It might do DX8, but that's really pointless at this point). I think they are working on DX10, 10.1, and 11.

And yea I see your point if you were using 5 screens hor that would be the same as using 3 as far as bezels, BUT if you used 2X3 you would have a huge bezel right in the middle of everything and that would be hard not to notice. My brain would not fill in those gaps haha. You mentioned 6 screens so again I thought you were talking about 6 screens. Another thing is even 5 screens would seem like a waste, it is hard enough for me to see the ends of my side monitors with three screens I doubt I would even see anything on 2 extra screens in hor, if I did see anything it would be very limited and I probably would not make it out. Portrait is not an option for me it just does not make sense and you see even more of the bezels.

I'm using a 5x1 Portrait Setup, I've tried 5x1Landscape and found it obnoxious. This i'm looking at a 70" Beast with extra FOV within my own FOV. With overlapped Bezels it's not so bad, I'm trying to figure out how to remove the bezels, but there's no obvious way to open my monitors, so I might sell them and buy something else (Like some U2410's). More bezels yes, but still I don't notice them unless I'm watching a movie or FMV. Which is why I bought a TV / Monitor thing (it's kinda cool actually) yesterday.

BTW, I said "...up to 6 displays"

The only think I see in the charts is, that we couldn#t care less about choosing between 5870 2GB vs. GTX 480 SLI performancewise. Both setups drive Triplehead-Gaming in performance regions were a fluent gaming is absolutely possible except 3D. So its more interessting which solution is more convenient to use and supports more games.

I choosed ATI now and may change back to nvidia when they are able to produce some more efficient cards. For the power, noise and heat of a 480 SLI you might run a Tri 5870 CF as well. We'll see. Now its ATI's part to launch the 6000 series in autumn.

[quote][quote]
Plus I will add that the GTX480 just plain sucks, too low perf/heat and perf/noise ratio ...
no matter in SLI ... :roll:

REALLY? It is one thing to favor ATI or Nvidia but don't make lies. Do you own GTX480's probably not because you would not be making such statements. I mean come on it is the top card out, how can it suck. The heat really does not seem to be an issue and everyone I know that owns fermi cards says the whole heat debate is a joke. And they are also quieter then ATI cards. No idea where your getting your info from. Maybe you should RMA your cards if you have some bad fermis hehe.

And you do know that Nvidia scales way way way way better then ATI right. So how do they suck in SLI.
ok so first thing first I favor Nvidia just because of nhancer... (I also have a GTX285 BTW ...)
second please don't accuse me of being a liar please, second time on this board. you have the right not to agree with me, you may discuss or argument as you wish but don't cross the line to insulting myself please.
But then maybe I shouldn't have said "sucks"... :mrgreen:

Third I'm not making up anything
http://www.behardware.com/articles/747-23/report-graphics-cards-and-thermal-characteristics.html
http://www.behardware.com/articles/747-24/report-graphics-cards-and-thermal-characteristics.html

temperatures are up to dangerous levels. GPU temperatures easily go beyond the 105 °C safety limit and performances have almost been halved due, we presume, to the the GPU cutting its clocks from 700 MHz to 410 MHz. In spite of this, temperatures are still crazily high [...]
An extreme graphics configuration, then, only for the most advanced users who won’t be mounting their GeForce GTX 480 SLI in a standard system.

http://www.behardware.com/articles/787-5/report-nvidia-geforce-gtx-480-470.html
On furmark & 3Dmark 2006 the GTX480 power consumption alone (not system wide) nearly reaches that of a HD5970
The idle & load noise levels of a single card are also higher than any competition including dual cards ...
Therefore it's not far fetched to say that two of them will likely be VERY NOISY


of course if you have a cooled room to keep temperatures moderate to low & a setup that allows for heavy computer tower noise dampening then maybe it's bearable...
As for myself my GTX285 is at 10 decibel less @load and can be heard alright even if the noise is just "air flow", so nothing disturbing but it's still more than enough... (mostly during summer)

so yeah the heat & noise are not at their best (bearing in mind that a 3 decibel difference means a doubled noise perception as I recall)
Of course it's really down to a personal opinion....

I would think really people should be aiming to water cool such powerful cards, in such close proximity to each other. 105*C is a little too high, IMO.

Of course it's really down to a personal opinion....

I agree it comes down to opinion, but you should not have said that GTX cards suck because they don't. They suck to you because of Heat and High Power usage. I don't know about you but I want performance, and I assume most people who buy high end cards are buying high end cards for there performance and not because of low power and low heat. So anyway when you said you they suck I thought you were talking about performance because you also mentioned even in SLI, which we all know that Nvidia cards scale a lot better then ATI cards. So when I said don't make lies I meant don't say they suck. You could have said IMO the cards run to hot and use to much power to justify the extra performance.

1366 chips run a lot hotter then 775 chips, I don't see people complaining about that and sticking with 775 because of heat haha. People want performance when it comes to hardware. Especially us enthusiast, so to me heat and power should not be a concern to any enthusiast. But in the end yes it all comes down to personal opinion.

And yea those links you posted mmmkay they put it in a cerreal box basically. I am surprised they were able to fit the card in that case. And ever since the cards have launched I have heard and read so many reviews where the high temps that were being talked about before release were not accurate at all. I have not heard from anyone that owns fermi cards getting anywhere close to those temps.

I would easily trade or sell my cards for Fermi's after seeing how much better they do in surround than ATI. It is obvious you get better performance with Nvidia Surround than you do with Eyefinity, and on top of that you get Cuda, and Physx. I don't care about how hot the cards run. As a matter of fact some of what I have seen on EVGA forum they are running cooler than mine are because ATI doesn't provide a long enough bridge so I have my cards sandwiched together. My top card idles at 60C and bottom at 35C. So I would prolly be running the same temps as I am now because I could run them spaced and also @ X16 X16. I also don't care about how much more power they use. What is the extra power going to come out to $10 $20 a year. I would not notice that on my power bill.

has anyone tried tri-sli with 1x display per gpu/card??

thanks alot guys!!

It seems that the GTX470 in SLI hits the sweet spot for the price/performance ratio. That will probably be my next setup.